While I think that the guy is a kook, I want to say that he has done NOTHING wrong. Nothing at all.

"I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol."

This is the quote that's getting a lot of air time.

This is a legitimate religious belief, and is defended by the first amendment on two counts. Additionally, this guy runs around and speaks at churches. Even when wearing his uniform, he is not speaking for the military, and I am disgusted that everyone not only seems to be assuming that, but that they get on his case for not supporting the party line on religion- some kind of wishy-washy liberal thing.

If there's some evidence that he's actually doing something in his capacity as a general, sure, throw the book at him. But are we getting angry at a religious man for having a religion?

posted 10-16-2003 05:27 PM
Apparently, my opinion is even the party line:

The defense secretary said he could not prevent military officials from making controversial statements.

"We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country," Rumsfeld said. "I think that for anyone to run around and think that that can be managed and controlled is probably wrong. Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) could do it pretty well, because he'd go around killing people if they said things he didn't like."
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged

posted 10-16-2003 06:12 PM
I agree that he ought to be able to say whatever he wants. In fact, it's not really him I'm perturbed by, since he's just a general, after all. What's he going to do, give the orders to kill with more righteous indignation? But I'm sure there're higher-ups that share his philosophy and don't express it to avoid the bad PR; Bush probably feels the same way in private to a large degree, with his diatribe about things like the axis of evil. And the last thing the world needs is a superpower run by a band of ideological extremists who persist in demonizing and alienating large sectors of the world. If Al Gore were president, North Korea wouldn't be hellbent on shooting off nuclear warheads.

posted 10-16-2003 06:30 PM
Apparently, my opinion is even the party line:

And exactly which fucking party is that, you careening myopic rednecked amnesiac walking disaster of the written word?

The defense secretary said he could not prevent military officials from making controversial statements.

"We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country," Rumsfeld said. "I think that for anyone to run around and think that that can be managed and controlled is probably wrong."

Yeah, right. Unless there's a war going on, in which case you had better watch what you say. cfalcon, the party line is that you are aiding terrorists. Anyone who urges warnings of lost liberties is, according to your Attorney General. Please retain your current address. I'm thinking of becoming a Republican, in which case I'll probably earn lots of experience points if I turn you in.

While I think that the guy is a kook, I want to say that he has done NOTHING wrong. Nothing at all.

I don't suppose he's broken any laws. I haven't the slightest idea what sort of governmental rules apply to those sorts of comments while the guy is in uniform and speaking publicly. I suspect that at that level people who aren't morons just know what's in stupendously bad taste, or more to the point, what will cause a sufficient public relations problem that something needs to be done about it. But whether he's done something wrong depends entirely upon what is being valued. This isn't a black-and-white issue, which is of course why your clanking, soot-belching goddam math brain will never get a firm handle on it. I haven't seen how the dems are trying to get any traction out of this, but this Muslim dude makes a very reasonable point:

"Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America's motives and intentions," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.

"Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, no matter how ill-informed or bigoted, but those beliefs should not be allowed to color important decisions that need to be made in the war on terrorism. General Boykin should be reassigned to a position in which he will not be able to harm our nation's image or interests."
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged

Yeah, right. Unless there's a war going on, in which case you had better watch what you say. cfalcon, the party line is that you are aiding terrorists. Anyone who urges warnings of lost liberties is, according to your Attorney General. Please retain your current address. I'm thinking of becoming a Republican, in which case I'll probably earn lots of experience points if I turn you in.

Look, I'm not defending the *other* actions where they piss all over our rights in general and detain people if their melanin content passes through a bandpass filter set to "middle eastern brownish". I'm just saying that they are correct about this.

I suspect that at that level people who aren't morons just know what's in stupendously bad taste,

So you and I think. But he doesn't. And the artictle isn't clear about exactly what the situation is that he's saying this stuff. If he goes to a church and says his piece, who cares? That's what some churches are about.

cause a sufficient public relations problem

I agree that it's bad to give our foes any more material to feed the anti-American hate machine, and this guy is exactly what we don't need. But I'm not upset at him, and I don't think he should have to resign.

but this Muslim dude makes a very reasonable point

Yea, that guy had a good point.

On the other hand, the article is out to demonize the general. They have snippets of his speech totally out of context. To whom is he addressing?

Are you unfit to be in charge of the military if you believe all religious beliefs except yours are wrong?

That describes nearly everyone!

If Al Gore were president, North Korea wouldn't be hellbent on shooting off nuclear warheads

I think your head has a bunch of Elemental Wrong it's waiting to upload to azure about this topic, if I recall from your last, similar post on this topic.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged

Would Gore be in Iraq right now? I don't think so. Would he have done Afghanistan? Probably.

Assuming the trade center attacks still occurred, which is far from a given IMO, yeah, we'd probably be in Afghanistan.

No way in hell Gore would have gone to Iraq though. That was GW's personal crusade / foreign relations disaster.

As for North Korea, Gore wouldn't have antagonized them with the axis of evil bs, and probably wouldn't have taken such a hard-assed "we're the US so shut up we don't engage in discussions with crazy countries" stance.

quote:The United States says that after Iraq, we are next, but we have our own countermeasures. Preemptive attacks are not the exclusive right of the US.

Ri Pyong-gap, deputy director, North Korean foreign ministry

It's a good thing our president (chosen by God to lead America) had the forsight to save so many lives by preemptively marching into Iraq and stopping Saddam from giving all of his weapons of mass destruction to his close personal friend Osama bin Laden. His decision to ignore the UN and go after rouge nations that pay attention to no authority but their own was both necessary and brilliant, and will never have any negative consequences.
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 10-16-2003 08:01 PM
Yeah, he certainly didn't break the law, but he is also certainly a complete idiot. Calling for his resignation is too polite for my tastes (I would suggest suicide), but a reasonable response to a walking talking symbol of the government giving a speech wherein he craps all over the First Amendment and generally proves himself to be incompetent.

What's going on in a person's head is important, and if it's incredibly stupid and the person isn't smart enough to keep it bottled up, he deserves what he gets. Someone smarter than him should have his job, preferably someone who doesn't think that everyone unlike him is Satan. Actually, preferably someone who doesn't believe in Satan, but you can't really have everything, can you?

It's bad enough that Bush is always saying this or that is "evil", but calling the enemy "Satan" is a little reminiscent of Saddam, don't you think?

posted 10-17-2003 12:18 AM
to a walking talking symbol of the government giving a speech wherein he craps all over the First Amendment

All of his speech, to my knowledge, was not in his role as a military leader. He speaks at churches. Preserving his ability to speak at churches and believe in glowing red men with pitchforks is what the first amendment is about. When I hear fundamentalists railing about the liberal media and the lack of religious freedom, this is exactly the shit they are bitching about. This is what the first amendment is for, making it so that he can say what he wants and not lose his job.

That being said, I'm not blind to the fact that we have a high placed military official who interprets our actions over in the Mideast as a righteous crusade agaist the enemies of God.

It is his right to think of it that way. As long as he doesn't behave incorrectly as a result, we should be fine.

Also, consider this: most people have no idea what it's like to be in the military. Being willing to die for a larger thing for yourself takes emotions, not just logic, for most people. Going to fight in a war is like voting: you yourself don't make a difference, but without all of the yous, nothing happens. Except in voting it's going to the stupid booth and here it's getting shot at. If our military wants to believe that the Bronze Age Sky God Of Battles is on their side, so be it. That's their business.

Freedom of thought is a scary thing.

It's not our fault that our enemies have picked the wrong religion... they are evil and need to be sent back to Hell...

What?

Back to hell?

Aren't you Baptist or something? So you would believe that "our enemies need to be converted". Certainly you don't believe they are possessed by demons?

On a different track, just what the hell kind of response is that, anyway?
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged

posted 10-17-2003 12:44 AM
cfalcon: All of his speech, to my knowledge, was not in his role as a military leader.

Then take off the damn uniform. And, seriously, just stop being so goddam stupid, at least out loud. The man is an idiot, so I guess it's a good thing that he got this out in the open so we can replace him with a non-idiot.

I wonder if he sits up at night trying to figure out how to nuke Hell.

Preserving his ability to speak at churches and believe in glowing red men with pitchforks is what the first amendment is about.

Oh, sure, he can say whatever he wants, but he's got a job to do and he's clearly not competent to do it. How do you prepare militarily to deal with Satan? Do you think he'll acurately interpret the actions of enemy humans when he thinks they are Hellspawn and that they hate us because we're Christians? Does he think this sort of talk is helping our cause?

He has no grasp of the situation and the ramifications of shooting his mouth off. He's unfit for the office.

When I hear fundamentalists railing about the liberal media and the lack of religious freedom, this is exactly the shit they are bitching about.

And when I say that you're imagining the liberal media, this is exactly the shit I'm bitching about. This is a legit beef which you cannot interpret properly, so you blame the press for not being fucked up.

This is what the first amendment is for, making it so that he can say what he wants and not lose his job.

If his job were making donuts, I wouldn't give a damn (although if he got fired for wearing his Dunkin Donuts hat and apron while speaking, I wouldn't complain), but his comments are directly related to his inability to comprehend the reality of the situation he is paid to deal with.

As long as he doesn't behave incorrectly as a result, we should be fine.

He's already done that. Part of his job is not saying stupid shit makes it more difficult for the organization he works for to do their job.

On a different track, just what the hell kind of response is that, anyway?

posted 10-17-2003 01:35 AM
cfalcon: Going to fight in a war is like voting: you yourself don't make a difference, but without all of the yous, nothing happens. Except in voting it's going to the stupid booth and here it's getting shot at.

lucky the "allah idol worshippers" are the worst shots i've ever seen, or the coalition death toll would've been higher. not that my fraction of a decade of "sacrifice" has put me in any other wars to use as comparisons, so i really couldn't have seen better shooting if i'd wanted to (and i wouldn't), but they're a helluva worse shot than i am, and my eyes aren't 20/20.

or is their aim so persistently abyssmal because god really is on our side? wouldn't that be funny...

Back to hell?

mk's obviously just adding fuel to the fire, not that it was burning low. he's the one in the easy chair munching popcorn and watching you boys slug it out.
From: the middle | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by MK:It's not our fault that our enemies have picked the wrong religion... they are evil and need to be sent back to Hell...

Okay, I stopped reading the thread here.

I don't know where to start . . .

(I'm working from the assumption that MK is Christian. If I'm wrong, substitute any #2s in this post with a #5.)

Why would you think that a religion created only 2,000 years ago is the "right" (as opposed to wrong) one? Humans have been capable of logically understanding externally communicated information for how long (?), so why would "God" wait to appear on Earth until 4-7 B.C. and show us the "true way"? How could there possibly be a "right" religion outside of direct revelation to an unbiased and neutral mind?

Do you realize that millions of intellectual arguments have come to the conclusion that here is no such thing as "evil"? Yes, suffering exists, but it is a natural consequence of living in a world where physical/emotional pain is a neural reaction.

Did you miss the part of the article where it said:Awad's statement noted that a verse in the Quran says Muslims believe in the same god as Jews and Christians.

So, then, a system of customs becomes an incorrect belief? And them being "evil" for being misled by their entire culture is entirely ridiculous.

I was previously willing to give MK the benefit of the doubt, but shit like this makes me suspect he's a gimmick of JTToad or sumpin.
From: Space. Like, outer space. | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 10-17-2003 06:06 AM
IF MK is indeed a gimmick account he is by far the best gimmick account eva.

also, who else but religious nuts would accept the job of waging a war on a totally undefined group of people over than "those terrorists over ther!!!111 oh look, they're like, islamic or someting!!!1111 meybe all islam is terrorist!!!1111"
From: Auckland, New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 10-17-2003 01:33 PM
Yeah, boy, he might not have been acting stupid, man did they get pwnzored. If your general posting level is so idiotic that no one can tell when you post something absolutely retarded whether you're being serious or not, that isn't a victory on your part. I think I faintly remember him being pretty ludicrous in other religious discussions too.

137: Why would you think that a religion created only 2,000 years ago is the "right" (as opposed to wrong) one? Humans have been capable of logically understanding externally communicated information for how long (?), so why would "God" wait to appear on Earth until 4-7 B.C. and show us the "true way"? How could there possibly be a "right" religion outside of direct revelation to an unbiased and neutral mind?

Sounds like a good method to me. Maybe he tried to tell us before but there weren't any unbiased and neutral minds around? Not that the prophets were unbiased anyway. Assuming amoebas aren't capable of religion and people evolved from amoebas, He had to introduce it to us sometime. And He didn't start in 4-7BC, as evidenced by the fact that an Old Testament exists. Is it better to show up several millenia/million years earlier and allow the world to slowly forget?

If you think He wanted simple-minded followers, yea, he coulda started whenever he wanted. If he wanted people to actually think about and understand what he was saying, 4BC sounds like a great time to me, because the global spreading of Christianity coincided pretty nicely with the increase in leisure time that allows philophizing and other such things. It all depends on what you think His reasoning is (or would be, since I don't think you believe He exists).

Do you realize that millions of intellectual arguments have come to the conclusion that here is no such thing as "evil"? Yes, suffering exists, but it is a natural consequence of living in a world where physical/emotional pain is a neural reaction.

Millions of intellectuals came to the conclusion that we live in a Newtonian world, though they probably didn't have to argue about it. Precedent is no proof, especially in the scientific world. And if certain neural firings coincide with evil thoughts, why not go a step further and say that neuron represents evil? Or would you say there's no such thing as anger, happiness, etc either, because they're represented by neurons? In this case psychology also tells us that most people misconstrue their emotions in different situations, so obviously they don't exist as absolutes.

posted 10-17-2003 07:16 PM
The man is totally inept regardless of his religious perceptions. After all, this is the same guy with brilliant successes in places like Somalia and Iran.

quote:Originally posted by MK:It's not our fault that our enemies have picked the wrong religion... they are evil and need to be sent back to Hell...

I don't know what they preach in St. Crock of Shit's Church, but the rest of us in the good 'ol land of the free and brave don't label group X as evil bastards. It tends to make people think you're a Church Nazi. It's really no suprise Saint MK hates Islamics, as he has probably the most repulsive history of "I'm right you're wrong" attitudes I've ever seen.
From: Cherry Hill, Suicide Captial of The World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by SDShamshel:Seriously. Getting owned by MK falls somewhere around getting killed by a parked car. Not hit, killed.

- - - - -There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra today than on Alzheimer's research. This means that by 2040, there should be a large elderly population with perky boobs, huge erections, and absolutely no recollection of what to do with them.
From: the wreckage of Indianapolis | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged

quote:Originally posted by Living on air bubbles:I don't know what they preach in St. Crock of Shit's Church, but the rest of us in the good 'ol land of the free and brave don't label group X as evil bastards.

posted 10-20-2003 03:19 PM
...a reasonable response to a walking talking symbol of the government giving a speech wherein he craps all over the First Amendment

quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

1. General Whatshisname is not "Congress".2. He did not make a "law".3. As cfalcon pointed out, saying that everyone who disagrees with you will go to Hell is most definitely "the free exercise thereof".

quote:Originally posted by Living on air bubbles:I don't know what they preach in St. Crock of Shit's Church, but the rest of us in the good 'ol land of the free and brave don't label group X as evil bastards.

Nazis, the Reds, the Vietcong, the KKK, terrorists, etc...

Funny, I don't remember us ever fighting Vietcong, Communists, and Nazis in the Land of The Free and The Brave*.

quote:I'm glad the US court system doesn't take things as literally as White Cat does!

posted 10-20-2003 07:42 PM
There's no argument that Boykin has done anything unconstitutional or illegal, just that what he did was very, very stupid and completely inappropriate as a representative of a goverment that has something like the First Amendment in its constitution, not to mention fundamentally un-American.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged

A too strict interpretation will allow federal agencies or members of the executive branch to go to town with religious favortism, which, while they may not be congress, clearly violates the spirit of the law.

More more information on the values of situation interpretation and common law systems, I'd recommend this book.
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

I just noticed that you said that "he certainly didn't break the law" earlier in the post I quoted (although I don't know what else "crapped all over the First Amendment" could mean).

just that what he did was very, very stupid and completely inappropriate as a representative of a goverment that has something like the First Amendment in its constitution, not to mention fundamentally un-American.

Unless the military has a policy against wearing uniforms when appearing in public in your spare time, it's completely "fair game".

BTW, it appears that they don't:

quote: Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he had spoken in uniform at prayer breakfasts, adding he did not think Boykin broke any military rules by giving talks at churches.

"There is a very wide gray area on what the rules permit," Myers said. "At first blush, it doesn't look like any rules were broken."

quote:Originally posted by White Cat:Well, gruco seems to be arguing that (see below).

I made that post about the courst system to agrue against the completly literal interpretation of the constitution(that is, suggesting that only congress itself can be in violation, or that favortism is acceptable because is doesn't "estabish" a government religion).

Regarding Boykin, I'd be happy with him offering some kind of apology. Regardless of whether or not what he did was technically illegal (I think a case could be made, but I'd need to brush up on agency law a bit, so whatever), that's not much to ask from him, and should be sufficient to brush over one man's stupid comments.

quote:Unless the military has a policy against wearing uniforms when appearing in public in your spare time, it's completely "fair game".

Millitary policy doesn't decide when someone is acting as an agent.

It's not at all unreasonable to interpret a man who's wearing a millitary uniform and throwing around the first person plural as a representative of the millitary, regardless of their policy and regardless of his intention, and therein lies the problem.
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

I've seen military personnel in uniform just hanging out. Since the military in general doesn't have influence over people, this is fine (it isn't like a policeman in uniform: a military officer has no special powers unless otherwise tasked, a policeman always does).

Additionally, hanging around in a military uniform to add emphasis to what you say or do is a time honored tradition in our society. Washington hung around in his British uniform when everybody was discussing revolution (hint HINT I'D BE A GOOD GENERAL WINK WINK HEY OVER HERE).

But that paragraph isn't important. What is important is that, since we don't live in a policestate, a man in a military uniform has no extra rights or powers... so it's fine.

quote:Originally posted by cfalcon:I've seen military personnel in uniform just hanging out.

Yeah, because buying a cup of coffee is the same thing as making ethnocentric speeches.

You're really overlooking the point if you think this has anything at all to do with "special powers" or with whether or not they're allowed to be wearing a uniform on their free time. Obviously they are, but what matters is the impression a reasonable* bystander will have while witnessing their behavior and what they will think about the context of the comments.

FDA members don't have any special priveldges, but if a guy shows you his card as a high-ranking member, and then continues to say, "yep, and that's why we shouldn't eat pork in this country. We need to stop those unholy, pork-eating satanists" then we have a bit of a problem...

quote:Additionally, hanging around in a military uniform to add emphasis to what you say or do is a time honored tradition in our society.

Bingo!

And the fact that the man in borrowing influence from a body of the US government in order to make comments regarding the falsehood of non-christian religion presents no problem to you?

Some kind of action should have been taken (or maybe has been, it's not like I've been following this thing). Like I said earlier, an apology would be fine, as this is just one guy being stupid.

*to be determined on the whim of the presiding judge
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged

The "in your spare time" card is fair game, alright. It's just totally worthless as a defense against the real problem with what this guy has done. Fuck off with your puerile handwaving about whether it was constitutional, or whether he was in uniform, or whom he was adddressing. Jesus.

Another good take on why it was a problem (from one dem and one gopper in congress):

"Public statements by a senior military official of an inflammatory, offensive nature that would denigrate another religion and which could be construed as bigotry may easily be exploited by enemies of the United States and contribute to an erosion of support within the Arab world, and, perhaps, increased risk for members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Muslim nations"

It doesn't matter whether he was wearing a tiny nametag with "I'm a Lt. General" in 9-point Trebuchet, or a dayglo condom and nothing else. It only matters that someone knew who he was - the vector of this information is academic.

posted 10-22-2003 01:17 AM
Yeah, because buying a cup of coffee is the same thing as making ethnocentric speeches.

I don't assume that the US government endorses coffee.

So, yesterday I got to tell a Muslim friend that US goverment has officially decided that he's "Satan".

Quit Michael Mooreing this. You know full well that the US government does not endorse this guys religion. Or any religion. That's the point.

FDA members don't have any special priveldges, but if a guy shows you his card as a high-ranking member, and then continues to say, "yep, and that's why we shouldn't eat pork in this country. We need to stop those unholy, pork-eating satanists" then we have a bit of a problem...

But if he did this at a church, maybe you would just accept that he's a religious guy, and has a set of funny beliefs.

And the fact that the man in borrowing influence from a body of the US government in order to make comments regarding the falsehood of non-christian religion presents no problem to you?

I think a guy at a church in a military uniform giving Crusader speeches is fucking crazy. I think it reflects poorly on our military, and us.

My opinions and yours, however, do not matter in this case.

"Public statements by a senior military official of an inflammatory, offensive nature that would denigrate another religion and which could be construed as bigotry may easily be exploited by enemies of the United States and contribute to an erosion of support within the Arab world, and, perhaps, increased risk for members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Muslim nations"

This is true, of course. This is why, if I were the general and had that *exact set of beliefs*, I would shut the fuck up.

puerile handwaving about whether it was constitutional

Yea, fuck the first amendment yo!

Seriously, that's the only issue at stake. Nobody here endorses what this guy says. Nobody thinks he should have said it. Nobody thinks that a high ranking military official talking Crusade in a world where all the Arabs have pretty much made these kinds of stories up now get to click on fucking Yahoo.com and look at them in living color is a good thing. Nobody thinks this guy is anything but a brazen fucking idiot making us all look like monkeys prancing from Atlantic to Pacific waiting to beat up brown people with different faiths.

Nobody.

Nobody.

Fucking nobody. All we are debating is whether he should be punished, right?

Whether he should be punished for sharing his religious beliefs?

HELLO MOTHERFUCKERS AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA

If you think this guy should be fired, please prepare for mandatory conversion to whatever religious beliefs the majority selects for you, because all you are saying is "minority religious views should be persecuted when they might get us in international trouble".

You will probably be required to believe in the devil in your new faith.

Joe Lieberman is running for President next year (and barely missed Vice President before). I can only imagine how academic the handwaving of a general would be in comparison to the global carnage to our image if we had a Jew leading our nation. Which is why I will never vote for him, or any Jew for that matter, to lead the country.

OK, so revise my comment on Al Gore earlier; North Korea wouldn't be hellbent on shooting off nukes, the whole bloody Middle East would.

At any rate, there is a region of activity not encompassed by law but very much encompassed by common sense, and a leader lacking common sense is unfit for the job. Spew idealism up down and sideways, but in the end they ought to be in touch with reality and the fact that they can't realistically (even if theoretically) go shooting their mouths off with no ill effects, and so they should act appropriately. It sucks for Joe that he doesn't get the same universal opportunities as a good Protestant candidate, but to suggest that we should tolerate his threat simply because it's a Rightful Thing is ludicrous.

posted 10-22-2003 12:54 PM
Whether he should be punished for sharing his religious beliefs?

Dear profoundly and multiply disabled flatworm. The answer is no. We are debating whether he should be punished for being "a brazen fucking idiot making us all look like monkeys prancing from Atlantic to Pacific waiting to beat up brown people with different faiths." The fact that in doing this he was also sharing his religious beliefs does not protect him.

The first amendment says that speaking freely and exercising your religion can't be made illegal. It does not say, "you can say anything you like without consequences." If you can't think of dozens of other examples in your society to which this observation is relevant, kill yourself.

Also, the fact that he was speaking about religion isn't even essential to a constitutional analysis. The "exercising your religion" part presumably covers nonverbal behavior, including prayer, ritual, and whatever else. The "freedom of speech" part covers religious utterances by itself. Notice the consequence of this observation! According to your analysis, this guy is protected from punishment by the first amendment because his comment was about religion. But this is no more or less protected than any other free speech. Therefore he could go on national television, call all the world leaders faggots, speculate on Putin's penchant for uncle-fucking, and assert that aliens told him never to poop while looking to the left. According to your current position, you're required to assert that he should not suffer any reprisals, because Congress can't make laws restricting free speech.

If you think this guy should be fired, please prepare for mandatory conversion to whatever religious beliefs the majority selects for you, because all you are saying is "minority religious views should be persecuted when they might get us in international trouble".

You need to wrap some duct tape around your one neuron, because it just misfired.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged

Calling the world leaders fags / incestuous is a *not* a form of Constitutionally protected speech. The alien thing would be (though realistically if he believes he is taking orders from aliens he may get in trouble with any clearances he's got, which may render him unable to do his job).
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged

Living on air bubbles
Frank Stallone
Member # 2089

posted 10-22-2003 03:28 PM

quote:Originally posted by Mentar the Malady Monkey:

quote:Originally posted by Living on air bubbles:Funny, I don't remember us ever fighting Vietcong, Communists, and Nazis in the Land of The Free and The Brave*.

...I'm sorry, what?

Sigh, nothing.

quote:

quote:Originally posted by Living on air bubbles:Mentard

Let's do some quick math here.

Number of times Mentard has been schooled by MK: 0Number of times Living on air bubbles has been schooled by MK: 1 and counting

Calling the world leaders fags / incestuous is a *not* a form of Constitutionally protected speech.

Exactly his point. This is basically what general dude is doing, only instead of fags, he's calling them evil incarnate. Not much of a difference, when you look at it from the point of view that everyone's equal and that shit.
From: Ohio | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged

posted 10-23-2003 02:47 PM
These comments, which really got me going and which I still view as ignorant:

- he has done NOTHING wrong. Nothing at all.- Are you unfit to be in charge of the military if you believe all religious beliefs except yours are wrong?- As long as he doesn't behave incorrectly as a result, we should be fine.- since we don't live in a policestate, a man in a military uniform has no extra rights or powers- the first amendment yo! Seriously, that's the only issue at stake.- Whether he should be punished for sharing his religious beliefs?

are blind towards towards a key issue: not his rights, but his responsibilities. He's done something wrong alright, and it wasn't just sharing his religious beliefs. He should be punished, or at least retrained and prevented from doing more damage. For exactly what he has done wrong, see the quotes from the Muslim guy and the two congressmen.

But I'm coming around to the view that the intersection between his rights and his responsibilities is actually the interesting bit, and maybe leads to more questions than obvious answers. It is clear that in our society, people, corporations, and other organizations need to be able to reward/encourage successful, productive, appropriate behavior, and punish/discourage damaging, unproductive, inappropriate behavior. Much of this behavior will be verbal. Does this conflict with the first amendment, which protects the right to speak freely?

Muzzling isn't in fashion, so controlling speech is all about the consequences. The FA doesn't say that no one can levy consequences for what people say, and I'm not talking about bogus fires in theatres. It's ok to ground your kid for being mean to Auntie. If Bob makes one boner after another in the meetings with your big client, you take him off the damn project. If someone won't shut up in a library, you ask her to leave. K can ban people that namecall. Does the FA have anything to do with these actions? For one thing, it only addresses the laws that Congress can make. I did a bit of reading, and in practice it's become broader than that. State and local governments can't make laws restricting speech either. Nevertheless, it's clearly about the consequences for speech that a government can legislate.

So how does that apply to our boy? The U.S. military is admittedly a government organization. The case might be clearer if this were not so. But how is legislation involved? Does the military need a law to punish soldiers for verbally fucking up? Do they have to make a law to do so? I don't think so, and furthermore its essential to their operation that they control what their soldiers say. A more extreme example would be downgrading the responsibilities of a grunt who blabs about secret operations. But this clown inflaming already embittered Muslims is arguably not much better.
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged

posted 10-23-2003 07:19 PM
You make good points. Let's see where we are:

General Bigmouth did not violate the First Amendment with his comments. We all agree on this, am i rite?

Therefore, the issue is whether punishing him for his comments would violate the First Amendment's "no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" rule.

If he worked for the private sector, there would be no FA violation for firing/demoting him. Being a gov't employee makes it murkier.

There is a strong case that Boykin's comments damaged the effectiveness of the US military, for which he works. Is this important enough to punish him for it, even if there is FA violation in doing so?

Was Boykin engaging in the "free exercise" of his religion via his comments? I'm pretty sure the Bible says to "speak out against evil" or something like that, although the closest I could find with a quick search was "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." (Ephesians 5:11)

The fact that he was off-duty and speaking in a church is also important, although wearing his uniform may detract from that, depending on what the military's rules on stuff like that are.

Typing long, two-sided arguments like this are tiring, so I'll save my conclusions for later.

quote:Originally posted by Living on air bubbles:Funny, I don't remember us ever fighting Vietcong, Communists, and Nazis in the Land of The Free and The Brave*.

...I'm sorry, what?

Sigh, nothing.

I think you might have been trying to say that, since these people were not in the USA itself, they didn't apply to your original statement, which was that "we don't label people as evil here in the USA" - I read this as an indicator that you believe Americans do not label people as evil: evidently you must have meant that we do not label people in the USA as evil, or something.

quote:

quote:

quote:Originally posted by Living on air bubbles:Mentard

Let's do some quick math here.

Number of times Mentard has been schooled by MK: 0Number of times Living on air bubbles has been schooled by MK: 1 and counting

posted 10-23-2003 08:34 PM
So how does that apply to our boy? The U.S. military is admittedly a government organization. The case might be clearer if this were not so.

Agreed. If Bill Gates said this shit in his church, you would probably see M$ distancing themselves from him. If a CEO in general said this, he'd probably be shut up, resign, or fired- and if none of these things happened, it would be because he was *really important* where he worked. But this guy isn't irreplacable. The major thing is the government being involved.

its essential to their operation that they control what their soldiers say. A more extreme example would be downgrading the responsibilities of a grunt who blabs about secret operations.

Unfortunately, that example isn't good, but only on the technicality that he has already signed papers saying that he *won't* do exactly that. If this guy went into the military and signed away his right to be a giant fucking dick at church, ok. But I won't argue with the general point, which is that the military does need to control what its people say. I think the question is, what do they control?

For instance, let's say he believes that we should all vote for George Bush when the next election comes around. I realize it isn't the same thing as calling all the Muslims of the world a bunch of satanists, but wouldn't all or most of the arguements apply? He's making us look like a bunch of warmongers, because he's supporting the warlike president. He's taking an internationallly unpopular stance, Bush being somewhere close to Herpes on the International Opinion Scale. He's insulting the Muslims because Bush talked about a Crusade once, and he's backing him.

Is this speech substantially different?

But this clown inflaming already embittered Muslims is arguably not much better.

Yea, I was discussing this with K- it's like when they formed some Total Information thing, and the logo looked as if they had googled up "all seeing conspiracy theories" and just started copying down supposed Masonic and Illuminati ideas- all seeing eye, etc. It was what you would come up with if you were writing an article for The Onion. This is like that, because the biggest lie that the radical fucks are telling their sane Arab bretheren is that we are on some Crusade and we are all going to beat them down for their religion- and then one of our generals says "We are on some Crusade, and we are all going to beat them down for their religion!".

posted 10-24-2003 05:59 PM
Jesus, I love it when cfalcon is this impenetrably stupid in public.

This has nothing to do with the Constitution or religion.

If a fucking waiter decides to explain in great detail how the veal on a customer's plate came to arrive there, do you not agree that it would be reasonable to fire him, despite his constitutionally-protected right to tell the world about baby moocows?

EDIT: Also I am stupid because I didn't see that there's a second page. If the above hasn't been beaten to death yet, then I'll leave it around.

ALSO EDIT: Well, it kinda got covered, but I spent a good 5 seconds thinking up my analogy, so I'm leaving it up.

The only thing I have to add is this:

WC: The fact that he was off-duty and speaking in a church is also important...

I think the important thing here is that he was speaking in public. The venue and attire confuse the issue a bit, but throw them both away...he's in a wifebeater and cutoffs addressing NASCAR fans...and you have the same problem.

quote:Originally posted by Mr. K:The only thing I have to add is this:

WC: The fact that he was off-duty and speaking in a church is also important...

I think the important thing here is that he was speaking in public. The venue and attire confuse the issue a bit, but throw them both away...he's in a wifebeater and cutoffs addressing NASCAR fans...and you have the same problem.

Except that there's nothing in the FA about "no law prohibiting the free exercise of being a NASCAR fan".

posted 10-27-2003 03:40 PM
I've read this topic a few times, and each time I become more and more perplexed. I'm not going to try and argue amendments and constitutions and all that stupid shit because basically I don't care. My opinion is not based upon pansy logic or reason, but rather pure, blistering hatred of a largely arbitrary nature. I feel no need to rationalize this.

My opinion: This man is a big fucktard, and should be done buckwheats at nearest convenience.Following this, he will revived, and surgically altered to be covered from head to toe in gaping cornholes. Then he will be flown to Peru to be married to the cockgolem, and the passionate howls emanating from their tin-roofed cumhut at night will be the subject of local legend for years to come.